Lackhand said:
So like I said, you allow the monster to either rotate the grid freely, or align the grid to the walls of the area the monster is in, you just don't think of it that way.
Just to clarify...I didn't rotate the grid, or allow the monster to do so. I included the grid in the red area in order to show that the area is the same size in both pictures without forcing people to get out the ruler and try to measure it out on the screen. The area is, in both pictures, 15 feet = 3 inches square. That's the only reason why I included the grid in the red area.
I mean, the monster's not in any squares; you can tell by the way it's all diagonal and stuff that any squares it occupies are completely coincidental to the way you're making rulings on it.
Not coincidental at all. The monster's combat area is 15'x15'. Translated down to "battlemap units", that's 3 squares by 3 squares in the orthogonal, or 2 squares by 2 squares in the diagonal. It's exactly as I get it from the RAW. The basic point is that the combat area itself is not fundamentally measured in squares, but in feet, and then translated down onto the battlemap according to the DMG rules.
Because of this, you're not even using the 1-2-1-2 abstraction, you're using a euclidean distance metric directly and rounding off the difference. The difference between the two comes only on the diagonals and rotations; you permit them, RAW doesn't. They really do force a huge creature to squeeze in that corridor because there really isn't facing in the rules.
That's the point of the 1-2-1-2 rules. They are trying to abstract euclidean properties of space into a grid of 5' squares. I CAN use the euclidean metric directly and round the difference because that IS what the 3.X rules are made for.
I do agree though that I'm not sure about the turning of monsters. There IS facing and turning, but directly only in the Flight Maneuverability rules. Facing because turning in X° only works when you turn from a primary direction that you are moving in, which is usually "Forward". But those rules don't apply to ground movement, and surprisingly enough not to swimming either. On the other hand, nothing forbids me from using those rules for ground movement or swimming either, at least nothing in the RAW, since that says maneuverability can cover all movement in 3D.
But I'd agree that the bend in the corridor would be to tight for a 15'x15' gelatineous cube to turn easily.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, but it isn't RAW, and while it's slightly further from the Rules as they Shall Be Writ, meh. I'm contemplating, if and when I run 4E games, dropping the grid entirely and playing freeform, measured string and all, or even trying to cook up some abstracted movement rules.
We'll see. I'm VERY MUCH a fan of 1-1-1-1 because it's simpler; these kinds of brainteasers can destroy any sufficiently playable abstraction (
) because I have a very low tolerance for what's necessary in "necessary complexity" in a game that isn't chess or played anything like it. The less "board game" in my D&D, the happier.
The only part where I disagree is about it not being RAW, but that's because we have a different view of what we can get out of the RAW in context with the question. As for the rest, I perfectly agree. As I mentioned, I usually don't play with battlemap and minis at all, so this discussion is, for me, more about the weird consequences that the 1-1-1-1 ruling will create either way, in my eyes, and because I think those are a too high price to pay for simplifying the mini-subgame of D&D battlemap combat.
I have to admit, I think this is the kind of discussion topic that would be a lot more interesting, easier and more fun when done in person, with proper props and rulebooks on hand, and some quality drinks on the side.
